Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Hey Ron;
(I was starting to think I was just a grump !!)
But it is amazing how these scientist types can make so much from remote images.
There really is a big difference between what us Amateurs would tend to do with an image, and what these guys are doing with them. There's clearly a lot to consider when they analyse an image … not the least of which, is a very deep understanding of the sensing technologies and balancing this against the current theories behind the technology AND the object they're analysing.
Its really difficult for us Amateurs to make informed opinions/statements about what the 'imagery evidence' is saying. I feel that all we can really do, is to keep track of the status of their deliberations, and try to separate their more justified statements from their speculative ones.
Keeping up with either of these elements is not a trivial exercise for us, either !
Cheers & Rgds |
Craig, I have followed up on the Phil Plait article and I can see where you are coming from
I have often thought that a lot of scientist fudge the facts to fit the puzzle
also a lot is lost in the translation between the statement put out by the issuer of the article
Regards